Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[Conservative65]

I don't need your approval to be welcome in society freak. Neither do my kids. Don't like it, fuck off or get AIDS.

It's not MY approval, silly...that's what you're not getting. Anti gay bigots are not going to welcome in society just like racist bigots aren't. This is a FACT that anti gay bigots will have to navigate. Good luck.

Don't need luck. Not planning on changing what I believe and have done fine and will continue to do fine. People like you will be shunned in society. Despite what support you think you have, you're still a second class freak of nature and always will be.

Wow- you sound so much like Stevie the racist and how he talks about African Americans.

Its downright eerily similar.

African-Americans? What a joke of a term. The only thing African any of them have is skin color. There are whites from South Africa that are more African than the blacks using that term.

You are probably just more comfortable calling them n*ggers.

No, just those that are.

I damn sure am not going to call someone that has never been to Africa and African American regardless of where their ancestors may be from.

 

[Skylar]

Says you, citing you. And I genuinely don't care what your personal opinion is. I'm concerned with legal rights.

You're concerned about a personal agenda.

I've got no horse in the race. As gay marriage doesn't effect me. Rights and equal protections do. Which is why I support gay marriage.

Yet you oppose other marriages that fit the same concept of equality you say should exist for same sex marriages. You've made it clear that you have no opinion on close relatives marrying because you don't have much knowledge of the details. You don't need the details. All you need to know is that two close relatives that are of the age of consent want to get married. That's your arugmen for faggots. Therefore, if you oppose those or avoid supporting them, you're a hypocrite.

Says you. Unlike you, I don't form opinions before I have information. You insist that no information is necessary. And you're obviously wrong. On marriage between siblings, I don't really have an opinion.

That's not 'opposition'. No matter how you try to spin it. And you clearly don't understand what 'hypocrisy' means. As you're using the term as a generic pejorative.

I don't personally support close relatives marrying.

Honestly, I don't care. Your personal opinion has no value to me. I don't consider you particularly insightful, you don't apply much reason or logic to your arguments, and you've made it clear that you don't think you need any information to form an opinion.

I don't respect any of that. So believe as you wish. Really, no one gives a shit. As the process that formed your perspective is, by your own admission, ignorant.

No thank you.

Your existence means nothing to me. No one that matters gives a shit about you. If they care, they don't matter. A bunch of faggots and faggot lovers mean nothing to society.

Says the guy that can't stop replying to me.

You shot yourself in the foot with when you insisted you didn't need knowledge or details to form your opinion. A rational person would. And that's why I don't put much value in your opinions. You simply aren't informed enough to discuss the topic intelligently.

 

[Skylar]

Says you, citing you. And I genuinely don't care what your personal opinion is. I'm concerned with legal rights.

You're concerned about a personal agenda.

I've got no horse in the race. As gay marriage doesn't effect me. Rights and equal protections do. Which is why I support gay marriage.

Yet you oppose other marriages that fit the same concept of equality you say should exist for same sex marriages. You've made it clear that you have no opinion on close relatives marrying because you don't have much knowledge of the details. You don't need the details. All you need to know is that two close relatives that are of the age of consent want to get married. That's your arugmen for faggots. Therefore, if you oppose those or avoid supporting them, you're a hypocrite.

Says you. Unlike you, I don't form opinions before I have information. You insist that no information is necessary. And you're obviously wrong. On marriage between siblings, I don't really have an opinion.

That's not 'opposition'. No matter how you try to spin it. And you clearly don't understand what 'hypocrisy' means. As you're using the term as a generic pejorative.

I don't personally support close relatives marrying.

Honestly, I don't care. Your personal opinion has no value to me. I don't consider you particularly insightful, you don't apply much reason or logic to your arguments, and you've made it clear that you don't think you need any information to form an opinion.

I don't respect any of that. So believe as you wish. Really, no one gives a shit. As the process that formed your perspective is, by your own admission, ignorant.

No thank you.

The ONLY information you need when it comes to siblings marrying is that they are consenting adults that want equality.

Says who?

 

[Skylar]

9 one line posts from Syriusly, one from "Conservative" in identical posting style and we're almost done with two pages..

Says the guy who posted the Prince Trust Study 117 times in 2 weeks.

 

[Conservative65]

You're concerned about a personal agenda.

I've got no horse in the race. As gay marriage doesn't effect me. Rights and equal protections do. Which is why I support gay marriage.

Yet you oppose other marriages that fit the same concept of equality you say should exist for same sex marriages. You've made it clear that you have no opinion on close relatives marrying because you don't have much knowledge of the details. You don't need the details. All you need to know is that two close relatives that are of the age of consent want to get married. That's your arugmen for faggots. Therefore, if you oppose those or avoid supporting them, you're a hypocrite.

Says you. Unlike you, I don't form opinions before I have information. You insist that no information is necessary. And you're obviously wrong. On marriage between siblings, I don't really have an opinion.

That's not 'opposition'. No matter how you try to spin it. And you clearly don't understand what 'hypocrisy' means. As you're using the term as a generic pejorative.

I don't personally support close relatives marrying.

Honestly, I don't care. Your personal opinion has no value to me. I don't consider you particularly insightful, you don't apply much reason or logic to your arguments, and you've made it clear that you don't think you need any information to form an opinion.

I don't respect any of that. So believe as you wish. Really, no one gives a shit. As the process that formed your perspective is, by your own admission, ignorant.

No thank you.

The ONLY information you need when it comes to siblings marrying is that they are consenting adults that want equality.

Says who?

Says the one who sees your entire support for same sex marriage being based on a claim for equality. Your entire argument in favor of it centers around YOUR claim that it isn't about an agenda but equal protection. When it comes to other types of marriages, you suddenly want more information that you ever considered when it comes to faggots. If the only info you need for homos is a desire for equality, that's all you should need for any other type of marriage between consenting adults. If you need more information, it proves you're about an agenda with homos.

 

[Conservative65]

You're concerned about a personal agenda.

I've got no horse in the race. As gay marriage doesn't effect me. Rights and equal protections do. Which is why I support gay marriage.

Yet you oppose other marriages that fit the same concept of equality you say should exist for same sex marriages. You've made it clear that you have no opinion on close relatives marrying because you don't have much knowledge of the details. You don't need the details. All you need to know is that two close relatives that are of the age of consent want to get married. That's your arugmen for faggots. Therefore, if you oppose those or avoid supporting them, you're a hypocrite.

Says you. Unlike you, I don't form opinions before I have information. You insist that no information is necessary. And you're obviously wrong. On marriage between siblings, I don't really have an opinion.

That's not 'opposition'. No matter how you try to spin it. And you clearly don't understand what 'hypocrisy' means. As you're using the term as a generic pejorative.

I don't personally support close relatives marrying.

Honestly, I don't care. Your personal opinion has no value to me. I don't consider you particularly insightful, you don't apply much reason or logic to your arguments, and you've made it clear that you don't think you need any information to form an opinion.

I don't respect any of that. So believe as you wish. Really, no one gives a shit. As the process that formed your perspective is, by your own admission, ignorant.

No thank you.

Your existence means nothing to me. No one that matters gives a shit about you. If they care, they don't matter. A bunch of faggots and faggot lovers mean nothing to society.

Says the guy that can't stop replying to me.

You shot yourself in the foot with when you insisted you didn't need knowledge or details to form your opinion. A rational person would. And that's why I don't put much value in your opinions. You simply aren't informed enough to discuss the topic intelligently.

I need information and details for an opinion on anything. When it comes to marriage, you need no information to support faggots but suddenly need it for other types of marriages.

You view of my opinions carries less weight in the real world than shit in a n*gger's back yard.

 

[Skylar]

I've got no horse in the race. As gay marriage doesn't effect me. Rights and equal protections do. Which is why I support gay marriage.

Yet you oppose other marriages that fit the same concept of equality you say should exist for same sex marriages. You've made it clear that you have no opinion on close relatives marrying because you don't have much knowledge of the details. You don't need the details. All you need to know is that two close relatives that are of the age of consent want to get married. That's your arugmen for faggots. Therefore, if you oppose those or avoid supporting them, you're a hypocrite.

Says you. Unlike you, I don't form opinions before I have information. You insist that no information is necessary. And you're obviously wrong. On marriage between siblings, I don't really have an opinion.

That's not 'opposition'. No matter how you try to spin it. And you clearly don't understand what 'hypocrisy' means. As you're using the term as a generic pejorative.

I don't personally support close relatives marrying.

Honestly, I don't care. Your personal opinion has no value to me. I don't consider you particularly insightful, you don't apply much reason or logic to your arguments, and you've made it clear that you don't think you need any information to form an opinion.

I don't respect any of that. So believe as you wish. Really, no one gives a shit. As the process that formed your perspective is, by your own admission, ignorant.

No thank you.

The ONLY information you need when it comes to siblings marrying is that they are consenting adults that want equality.

Says who?

Says the one who sees your entire support for same sex marriage being based on a claim for equality. Your entire argument in favor of it centers around YOUR claim that it isn't about an agenda but equal protection.

I've defined my standards of equal protection: if you're going to say no to gays, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative ends. And I didn't pull them from the air. These are the standards articulated by Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, and in other USSC cases.

Gay marriage bans have none of these.

That's my basis of equal protection. And I don't know enough sibling marriage to have an opinion on the matter.

 

[Conservative65]

Yet you oppose other marriages that fit the same concept of equality you say should exist for same sex marriages. You've made it clear that you have no opinion on close relatives marrying because you don't have much knowledge of the details. You don't need the details. All you need to know is that two close relatives that are of the age of consent want to get married. That's your arugmen for faggots. Therefore, if you oppose those or avoid supporting them, you're a hypocrite.

Says you. Unlike you, I don't form opinions before I have information. You insist that no information is necessary. And you're obviously wrong. On marriage between siblings, I don't really have an opinion.

That's not 'opposition'. No matter how you try to spin it. And you clearly don't understand what 'hypocrisy' means. As you're using the term as a generic pejorative.

I don't personally support close relatives marrying.

Honestly, I don't care. Your personal opinion has no value to me. I don't consider you particularly insightful, you don't apply much reason or logic to your arguments, and you've made it clear that you don't think you need any information to form an opinion.

I don't respect any of that. So believe as you wish. Really, no one gives a shit. As the process that formed your perspective is, by your own admission, ignorant.

No thank you.

The ONLY information you need when it comes to siblings marrying is that they are consenting adults that want equality.

Says who?

Says the one who sees your entire support for same sex marriage being based on a claim for equality. Your entire argument in favor of it centers around YOUR claim that it isn't about an agenda but equal protection.

I've defined my standards of equal protection: if you're going to say no to gays, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative ends. And I didn't pull them from the air. These are the standards articulated by Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, and in other USSC cases.

Gay marriage bans have none of these.

That's my basis of equal protection. And I don't know enough sibling marriage to have an opinion on the matter.

Gay marriage bans have none based on your OPINION.

You don't know shit. That's why you support a bunch of deviant faggots getting married. Maybe you can find a spouse.

 

[Skylar]

I've got no horse in the race. As gay marriage doesn't effect me. Rights and equal protections do. Which is why I support gay marriage.

Yet you oppose other marriages that fit the same concept of equality you say should exist for same sex marriages. You've made it clear that you have no opinion on close relatives marrying because you don't have much knowledge of the details. You don't need the details. All you need to know is that two close relatives that are of the age of consent want to get married. That's your arugmen for faggots. Therefore, if you oppose those or avoid supporting them, you're a hypocrite.

Says you. Unlike you, I don't form opinions before I have information. You insist that no information is necessary. And you're obviously wrong. On marriage between siblings, I don't really have an opinion.

That's not 'opposition'. No matter how you try to spin it. And you clearly don't understand what 'hypocrisy' means. As you're using the term as a generic pejorative.

I don't personally support close relatives marrying.

Honestly, I don't care. Your personal opinion has no value to me. I don't consider you particularly insightful, you don't apply much reason or logic to your arguments, and you've made it clear that you don't think you need any information to form an opinion.

I don't respect any of that. So believe as you wish. Really, no one gives a shit. As the process that formed your perspective is, by your own admission, ignorant.

No thank you.

Your existence means nothing to me. No one that matters gives a shit about you. If they care, they don't matter. A bunch of faggots and faggot lovers mean nothing to society.

Says the guy that can't stop replying to me.

You shot yourself in the foot with when you insisted you didn't need knowledge or details to form your opinion. A rational person would. And that's why I don't put much value in your opinions. You simply aren't informed enough to discuss the topic intelligently.

I need information and details for an opinion on anything. When it comes to marriage, you need no information to support faggots but suddenly need it for other types of marriages.

You just said that knowledge and details weren't necessary to form an opinion. But now, suddenly, they are?

If even you are going to treat your claims like worthless garbage, surely you can understand when we treat them the same way.

You view of my opinions carries less weight in the real world than shit in a n*gger's back yard.

"My" view has convinced the majority of the population to support gay marriage. "My" view has resulted in gay marriage in 37 of 50 states. "My" view has won 44 of 46 federal court cases. And is poised to make it 45 of 47 with the Supreme Court ruling in June.

Not because its 'mine'. But because I've adopted the same sound reasoning that has convinced the people, the courts, and apparently the USSC.

Ignore if you will. It really doesn't matter. Your willful ignorance will have zero impact on the outcome of any case.

 

[Skylar]

Says you. Unlike you, I don't form opinions before I have information. You insist that no information is necessary. And you're obviously wrong. On marriage between siblings, I don't really have an opinion.

That's not 'opposition'. No matter how you try to spin it. And you clearly don't understand what 'hypocrisy' means. As you're using the term as a generic pejorative.

Honestly, I don't care. Your personal opinion has no value to me. I don't consider you particularly insightful, you don't apply much reason or logic to your arguments, and you've made it clear that you don't think you need any information to form an opinion.

I don't respect any of that. So believe as you wish. Really, no one gives a shit. As the process that formed your perspective is, by your own admission, ignorant.

No thank you.

The ONLY information you need when it comes to siblings marrying is that they are consenting adults that want equality.

Says who?

Says the one who sees your entire support for same sex marriage being based on a claim for equality. Your entire argument in favor of it centers around YOUR claim that it isn't about an agenda but equal protection.

I've defined my standards of equal protection: if you're going to say no to gays, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative ends. And I didn't pull them from the air. These are the standards articulated by Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, and in other USSC cases.

Gay marriage bans have none of these.

That's my basis of equal protection. And I don't know enough sibling marriage to have an opinion on the matter.

Gay marriage bans have none based on your OPINION.

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

You don't know shit. That's why you support a bunch of deviant faggots getting married. Maybe you can find a spouse.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

 

[Conservative65]

Yet you oppose other marriages that fit the same concept of equality you say should exist for same sex marriages. You've made it clear that you have no opinion on close relatives marrying because you don't have much knowledge of the details. You don't need the details. All you need to know is that two close relatives that are of the age of consent want to get married. That's your arugmen for faggots. Therefore, if you oppose those or avoid supporting them, you're a hypocrite.

Says you. Unlike you, I don't form opinions before I have information. You insist that no information is necessary. And you're obviously wrong. On marriage between siblings, I don't really have an opinion.

That's not 'opposition'. No matter how you try to spin it. And you clearly don't understand what 'hypocrisy' means. As you're using the term as a generic pejorative.

I don't personally support close relatives marrying.

Honestly, I don't care. Your personal opinion has no value to me. I don't consider you particularly insightful, you don't apply much reason or logic to your arguments, and you've made it clear that you don't think you need any information to form an opinion.

I don't respect any of that. So believe as you wish. Really, no one gives a shit. As the process that formed your perspective is, by your own admission, ignorant.

No thank you.

Your existence means nothing to me. No one that matters gives a shit about you. If they care, they don't matter. A bunch of faggots and faggot lovers mean nothing to society.

Says the guy that can't stop replying to me.

You shot yourself in the foot with when you insisted you didn't need knowledge or details to form your opinion. A rational person would. And that's why I don't put much value in your opinions. You simply aren't informed enough to discuss the topic intelligently.

I need information and details for an opinion on anything. When it comes to marriage, you need no information to support faggots but suddenly need it for other types of marriages.

You just said that knowledge and details weren't necessary to form an opinion. But now, suddenly, they are?

If even you are going to treat your claims like worthless garbage, surely you can understand when we treat them the same way.

You view of my opinions carries less weight in the real world than shit in a n*gger's back yard.

"My" view has convinced the majority of the population to support gay marriage. "My" view has resulted in gay marriage in 37 of 50 states. "My" view has won 44 of 46 federal court cases. And is poised to make it 45 of 47 with the Supreme Court ruling in June.

Not because its 'mine'. But because I've adopted the same sound reasoning that has convinced the people, the courts, and apparently the USSC.

Ignore if you will. It really doesn't matter. Your willful ignorance will have zero impact on the outcome of any case.

Individual judges have made faggot marriages legal in many States. Don't confuse an activist judge and the will of the people of my State who opposed it. That's a problem you faggot lovers have. Having an agenda isn't having reason.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Says you. Unlike you, I don't form opinions before I have information. You insist that no information is necessary. And you're obviously wrong. On marriage between siblings, I don't really have an opinion.

That's not 'opposition'. No matter how you try to spin it. And you clearly don't understand what 'hypocrisy' means. As you're using the term as a generic pejorative.

Honestly, I don't care. Your personal opinion has no value to me. I don't consider you particularly insightful, you don't apply much reason or logic to your arguments, and you've made it clear that you don't think you need any information to form an opinion.

I don't respect any of that. So believe as you wish. Really, no one gives a shit. As the process that formed your perspective is, by your own admission, ignorant.

No thank you.

Your existence means nothing to me. No one that matters gives a shit about you. If they care, they don't matter. A bunch of faggots and faggot lovers mean nothing to society.

Says the guy that can't stop replying to me.

You shot yourself in the foot with when you insisted you didn't need knowledge or details to form your opinion. A rational person would. And that's why I don't put much value in your opinions. You simply aren't informed enough to discuss the topic intelligently.

I need information and details for an opinion on anything. When it comes to marriage, you need no information to support faggots but suddenly need it for other types of marriages.

You just said that knowledge and details weren't necessary to form an opinion. But now, suddenly, they are?

If even you are going to treat your claims like worthless garbage, surely you can understand when we treat them the same way.

You view of my opinions carries less weight in the real world than shit in a n*gger's back yard.

"My" view has convinced the majority of the population to support gay marriage. "My" view has resulted in gay marriage in 37 of 50 states. "My" view has won 44 of 46 federal court cases. And is poised to make it 45 of 47 with the Supreme Court ruling in June.

Not because its 'mine'. But because I've adopted the same sound reasoning that has convinced the people, the courts, and apparently the USSC.

Ignore if you will. It really doesn't matter. Your willful ignorance will have zero impact on the outcome of any case.

Individual judges have made faggot marriages legal in many States. Don't confuse an activist judge and the will of the people of my State who opposed it. That's a problem you faggot lovers have. Having an agenda isn't having reason.

And this is why we have a Constitution – to protect Americans from your kind of hate, ignorance, and stupidity.

 

[Conservative65]

The ONLY information you need when it comes to siblings marrying is that they are consenting adults that want equality.

Says who?

Says the one who sees your entire support for same sex marriage being based on a claim for equality. Your entire argument in favor of it centers around YOUR claim that it isn't about an agenda but equal protection.

I've defined my standards of equal protection: if you're going to say no to gays, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative ends. And I didn't pull them from the air. These are the standards articulated by Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, and in other USSC cases.

Gay marriage bans have none of these.

That's my basis of equal protection. And I don't know enough sibling marriage to have an opinion on the matter.

Gay marriage bans have none based on your OPINION.

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

You don't know shit. That's why you support a bunch of deviant faggots getting married. Maybe you can find a spouse.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

Gay marriage can't ever win. Someone that is a faggot is a born loser. So sad you can't admit it.

I don't know why you support it. I know why you say you do but you've contradicted yourself enough on the equality point to see that isn't why. Maybe it's because you have a family member that it a faggot. I have a cousin that is. He isn't welcome at my house nor do I go to family functions where his abnormal lifestyle will be on display. Do you want him?

 

[Skylar]

Individual judges have made faggot marriages legal in many States. Don't confuse an activist judge and the will of the people of my State who opposed it. That's a problem you faggot lovers have. Having an agenda isn't having reason.

Who says they are 'activist judges'. See, your standard of an 'activist judge' is anyone who disagrees with you. ANd agreement with you isn't a standard of legal legitimacy. Or a standard of anything for that matter.

And with gay marriage legal in 37 of 50 States with tens of thousands of gays and lesbians already married......'my' position is clearly worth quite a bit. While yours is rightfully withering, with a string of defeats that essentially perfect.

 

[Conservative65]

Your existence means nothing to me. No one that matters gives a shit about you. If they care, they don't matter. A bunch of faggots and faggot lovers mean nothing to society.

Says the guy that can't stop replying to me.

You shot yourself in the foot with when you insisted you didn't need knowledge or details to form your opinion. A rational person would. And that's why I don't put much value in your opinions. You simply aren't informed enough to discuss the topic intelligently.

I need information and details for an opinion on anything. When it comes to marriage, you need no information to support faggots but suddenly need it for other types of marriages.

You just said that knowledge and details weren't necessary to form an opinion. But now, suddenly, they are?

If even you are going to treat your claims like worthless garbage, surely you can understand when we treat them the same way.

You view of my opinions carries less weight in the real world than shit in a n*gger's back yard.

"My" view has convinced the majority of the population to support gay marriage. "My" view has resulted in gay marriage in 37 of 50 states. "My" view has won 44 of 46 federal court cases. And is poised to make it 45 of 47 with the Supreme Court ruling in June.

Not because its 'mine'. But because I've adopted the same sound reasoning that has convinced the people, the courts, and apparently the USSC.

Ignore if you will. It really doesn't matter. Your willful ignorance will have zero impact on the outcome of any case.

Individual judges have made faggot marriages legal in many States. Don't confuse an activist judge and the will of the people of my State who opposed it. That's a problem you faggot lovers have. Having an agenda isn't having reason.

And this is why we have a Constitution – to protect Americans from your kind of hate, ignorance, and stupidity.

Funny how you view your interpretation of the Constitution as the only one that matters. You don't matter you faggot lover. That means your opinions don't matter. Much like Skylar, your opinion rises to the same level of value as shit in a n*gger's back yard.

 

[Conservative65]

The ONLY information you need when it comes to siblings marrying is that they are consenting adults that want equality.

Says who?

Says the one who sees your entire support for same sex marriage being based on a claim for equality. Your entire argument in favor of it centers around YOUR claim that it isn't about an agenda but equal protection.

I've defined my standards of equal protection: if you're going to say no to gays, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative ends. And I didn't pull them from the air. These are the standards articulated by Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, and in other USSC cases.

Gay marriage bans have none of these.

That's my basis of equal protection. And I don't know enough sibling marriage to have an opinion on the matter.

Gay marriage bans have none based on your OPINION.

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

You don't know shit. That's why you support a bunch of deviant faggots getting married. Maybe you can find a spouse.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

 

[Skylar]

Says who?

Says the one who sees your entire support for same sex marriage being based on a claim for equality. Your entire argument in favor of it centers around YOUR claim that it isn't about an agenda but equal protection.

I've defined my standards of equal protection: if you're going to say no to gays, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative ends. And I didn't pull them from the air. These are the standards articulated by Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, and in other USSC cases.

Gay marriage bans have none of these.

That's my basis of equal protection. And I don't know enough sibling marriage to have an opinion on the matter.

Gay marriage bans have none based on your OPINION.

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

You don't know shit. That's why you support a bunch of deviant faggots getting married. Maybe you can find a spouse.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

Gay marriage can't ever win.

Sure it can. Every time a state recognized it, it wins. And so does equal protection. And constitutional rights!

You disagree. And who gives a shit? Gays are getting married anyway. You believe whatever you want. It has no impact on the 10s of thosuands of gays and lesbians that have been married, or the hundreds of thousands that are to follow.

Sounds like a win-win to me!

 

[Conservative65]

Individual judges have made faggot marriages legal in many States. Don't confuse an activist judge and the will of the people of my State who opposed it. That's a problem you faggot lovers have. Having an agenda isn't having reason.

Who says they are 'activist judges'. See, your standard of an 'activist judge' is anyone who disagrees with you. ANd agreement with you isn't a standard of legal legitimacy. Or a standard of anything for that matter.

And with gay marriage legal in 37 of 50 States with tens of thousands of gays and lesbians already married......'my' position is clearly worth quite a bit. While yours is rightfully withering, with a string of defeats that essentially perfect.

The definition of activist.

 

[Skylar]

Says who?

Says the one who sees your entire support for same sex marriage being based on a claim for equality. Your entire argument in favor of it centers around YOUR claim that it isn't about an agenda but equal protection.

I've defined my standards of equal protection: if you're going to say no to gays, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative ends. And I didn't pull them from the air. These are the standards articulated by Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, and in other USSC cases.

Gay marriage bans have none of these.

That's my basis of equal protection. And I don't know enough sibling marriage to have an opinion on the matter.

Gay marriage bans have none based on your OPINION.

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

You don't know shit. That's why you support a bunch of deviant faggots getting married. Maybe you can find a spouse.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

You cite activist judges with the same faggot agenda you have.

Says you. Again, you applying arbitrary labels to anyone who disagrees with you is meaningless. As agreeing with you is meaningless. It defines nothing, legitimizes nothing, nor establishes any rational standard. Its just your personal opinion.

And no one cares.

Now gay marriage being legal in 37 of 50 States? Folks care about that.

 

[Conservative65]

Says the one who sees your entire support for same sex marriage being based on a claim for equality. Your entire argument in favor of it centers around YOUR claim that it isn't about an agenda but equal protection.

I've defined my standards of equal protection: if you're going to say no to gays, you'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest and a valid legislative ends. And I didn't pull them from the air. These are the standards articulated by Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, and in other USSC cases.

Gay marriage bans have none of these.

That's my basis of equal protection. And I don't know enough sibling marriage to have an opinion on the matter.

Gay marriage bans have none based on your OPINION.

I'm not citing me. I'm citing 44 of 46 federal rulings which have all indicated that gay marriage bans violate equal protection. And with the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans, while at the same time refusing EVERY request for stay from States trying to preserve gay marriage bans....

........it seems quite likely that the USSC is on the same page I am.

You don't know shit. That's why you support a bunch of deviant faggots getting married. Maybe you can find a spouse.

I know gay marriage is winning. That its swaying public opinion, with a sound majority supporting it now. I know gay marriage is legal in 37 of 50 States. And I know it seems quite likely that the USSC will make it 50 of 50 in June.

And apparently, so do you.

Gay marriage can't ever win.

Sure it can. Every time a state recognized it, it wins. And so does equal protection. And constitutional rights!

You disagree. And who gives a shit? Gays are getting married anyway. You believe whatever you want. It has no impact on the 10s of thosuands of gays and lesbians that have been married, or the hundreds of thousands that are to follow.

Sounds like a win-win to me!

My State didn't recognize it. An activist judge said what my State did recognize didn't matter.

It just gives me more opportunities to go where the faggots are marrying and make fun of their second class status.

Two people of the same sex getting married are born losers.